Dear EU Commission, please work with the text more!

["Jacek Gancarson" <jacek.gancarson@chello.se>]

Dear All



I have read the Frits Bolkenstein speach 2003-10-05:



http://swpat.ffii.org/players/bolkestein/



I think the article shows that he is listening to all active voices
concerning patent directive, (as politicians usually are listening mostly to
the voices of power, because listening to all communication requires to much
intellectual resources).



Problem is that the EU Commission is to slow or incapable to discuss
seriously the question of patenting of  business methods with US. This lack
of interoperability leads The Commission to deviate to furious attacks on EU
democratic processes, as this launched by Patent Directive's debate and
voting.



Bolkenstain is still giving examples of  patenting of medicines, and trying
to marginalise the problem with business methods and interoperabilty.



Meanwhile patenting of business methods is the result of concentration of
economic power in exactly the same way as it took place in 30-ties in Soviet
Union. It will strengthen these centres of power but it will weaken the
market.



Business methods belong to the field of competition and no competitor has
the right to prevent me from organising my business in the manner most
effective for consumers, public and me!



I think the EPO's Appendix 6 was the result of  poor  recognition of
networking opportunities in near future, and aggressive lobbing of  Internet
capable American lawyers.



Erwin Basinski from AIPLA simply will never lift this issue by himself as
the American praxis went too far in case of  patenting of business methods
on the network.



European law makers should not allow themself to be distracted by external
and not relevant problems. The EU patent Directive requires only minor
wording work  clarification in the spirit of European interest an in
accordance with international treaties, but Americans should also take part
of their own responsibility and improve their own Patent Law instead of only
try to *harmonise* the European one.



For example Article 27 of TRIP is saying:
  1.. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields
of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are
capable of industrial application.
  Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and
paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights
enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of
technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.

2. Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within
their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to
protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or
plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment,
provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is
prohibited by their law.

I thing this interpretation holds:
Patenting of business methods affects ordre public by blocking competition
by exclusive use of non- technically new methods.



Best regards

Jacek Gancarson